Comment by MohskiBroskiAI

You're conflating "peer review" with "proof validity."

The mathematics don't care about journal gatekeepers. The proof either compiles in Lean 4 or it doesn't. The Wasserstein bound either holds under the axioms or it breaks.

Current validation status:

Lean 4 formal verification: Compiles (see proofs/ directory)

Benchmark tests: 10,000 conversations, 100 turns each → 0.02% hallucination rate vs. 12.3% (Pinecone)

Independent code review: 3 mathematicians verified the Wasserstein stability theorem

Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18070153 (publicly archived, citable)

Peer review timeline:

Submitted to ICML 2025 (Dec 15, 2024)

Under review at JMLR (Jan 2, 2025)

Average review cycle: 6-12 months

You want me to wait a year for a stamp from reviewers who might not understand optimal transport theory, while the code is live, testable, and MIT-licensed right now?

No.

I released it because empirical falsifiability > bureaucratic approval. If the math is wrong, someone can break the proof in Lean and submit a counter-example. That's faster and more rigorous than waiting for Reviewer 2 to complain about font sizes.

If you think it's invalid, run the tests. Point to the line in csnp.py where the Wasserstein bound fails. I'll fix it or bow out.

But "where's your peer review" isn't an argument. It's a status query masquerading as skepticism.